1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is directed to probe microscopes, and more particularly, a probe microscope apparatus and method for sensing tip-sample interaction forces.
2. Description of Related Art
Developments in nanotechnology have enabled mechanical experiments on a broad range of samples including single molecules, such that fundamental molecular interactions can be studied directly. The mechanical properties of biological molecules, in particular, such as actin filaments and DNA has lead to the development of a range of instrumentation for conducting these studies. In this regard, systems and methods differing in force and dynamic ranges currently being used include magnetic beads, optical tweezers, glass microneedles, biomembrane force probes (BFP), scanning probe microscopy (SPM), and atomic force microscopy (AFM).
With a force sensitivity on the order of a few pico-Newtons (pN=10−12N), an AFM is an excellent tool for probing fundamental force interactions between surfaces AFM has been used to probe the nature of attractive van der Waals and attractive/repulsive electrostatic forces between systems such as metal probes and insulating mica surfaces, and insulating probes on insulating and conducting samples with materials such as silicon nitride, diamond, alumina, mica, glass and graphite. Other applications include the study of adhesion, friction, and wear, including the formation or suppression of capillary condensation on hydrophilic silicon, amorphous carbon and lubricated SiO2 surfaces.
More particularly, for biological molecules, force is often an important functional and structural parameter. Biological processes such as DNA replication, protein synthesis, drug interaction, to name a few, are largely governed by intermolecular forces.
However, these forces are extremely small. With its sensitivity in the pico-Newton scale, the PM has been employed to analyze these interactions. In this regard, SPMs typically are used to generate force curves that provide particularly useful information for analyzing very small samples.
The knowledge regarding the relation between structure, function and force is evolving and therefore single molecule force spectroscopy, particularly using SPM, has become a versatile analytical tool for structural and functional investigation of single bio-molecules in their native environments. For example, force spectroscopy by SPM has been used to measure the binding forces of different receptor-ligand systems, observe reversible unfolding of protein domains, and investigate polysaccharide elasticity at the level of inter-atomic bond flips. Moreover, molecular motors and their function, DNA mechanics and the operation of DNA-binding agents such as proteins in drugs have also been observed. Further, the SPM is capable of making nano-mechanical measurements (such as elasticity) on biological specimens, thus providing data relative to subjects such as cellular and protein dynamics.
Another main application of making AFM force measurements is in materials science where the study of mechanical properties of nano-scale thin films and clusters is of interest. For example, as microstructures such as integrated circuits continue to shrink, exploring the mechanical behavior of thin films from known properties of the materials becomes increasingly inaccurate. Therefore, continuing demand for faster computers and larger capacity memory and storage devices places increasing importance on understanding nano-scale mechanics of metals and other commonly used materials.
PMs including instruments such as the atomic force microscope (AFM), are devices that typically use a sharp tip and low forces to characterize the surface of a sample down to atomic dimensions. Generally, AFMs include a probe having a tip that is introduced to a surface of a sample to detect changes in the characteristics of the sample. In this case, relative scanning movement between the tip and the sample is provided so that surface characteristic data can be acquired over a particular region of the sample, and a corresponding map of the sample surface can be generated. However, PMs also include devices such as molecular force probes (MFPs) that similarly use a probe to characterize sample properties but do not scan.
In one application of AFM, either the sample or the probe is translated up and down relatively perpendicularly to the surface of the sample in response to a signal related to the motion of the cantilever of the probe as it is scanned across the surface to maintain a particular imaging parameter (for example, to maintain a set-point oscillation amplitude). In this way, the feedback data associated with this vertical motion can be stored and then used to construct an image of the sample surface corresponding to the sample characteristic being measured, e.g., surface topography. Other types of images are generated directly from the detection of the cantilever motion or a modified version of that signal (i.e., deflection, amplitude, phase, friction, etc.), and are thus not strictly topographical images.
In addition to surface characteristic imaging such as topographical imaging, the AFM can probe nano-mechanical and other fundamental properties of samples and their surfaces. Again, AFM applications extend into applications ranging from measuring colloidal forces to monitoring enzymatic activity in individual proteins to analyzing DNA mechanics.
When measuring biological samples, it is useful to measure, for example, the stiffness of the sample; in one example, to separate salt crystals from DNA or to separate the DNA from a hard surface. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,376, assigned to the assignee of the present invention, an atomic force microscope is described in which the system can map both the local the stiffness (force spectroscopy) and the topography of a sample. In the preferred implementation, a stiffness map of the sample is obtained by modulating the force between the tip and sample during a scan by modulating the vertical position of the sample while keeping the average force between the tip and the sample constant. The bending of the cantilever, which is a measure of the force on the tip, is measured by an optical detector that senses the deflection of a light beam reflected from the back of the cantilever. In a simple example, the AFM and force spectroscopy apparatus of this patent has been used to study DNA laying on a glass surface. Modulating the force and then imaging the stiffness of the sample has the advantage that a surface such as glass, which has a rough topographic image, will have a flat stiffness image, permitting soft molecules on it such as DNA to be readily imaged.
Notably, a key element of the probe microscope is its microscopic sensor, i.e., the probe. The probe includes a microcantilever, the design and fabrication of which is well-known in the field, which is typically formed out of silicon, silicon nitride, or glass, and has typical dimensions in the range of 10–1000 microns in length and 0.1–10 microns in thickness. The probe may also include a “tip,” which, particularly in AFM, is typically a sharp projection near the free end of the cantilever extending toward the sample. In the more general field of probe microscopy, the tip may be absent or of some other shape and size in order to control the particular type, magnitude, or geometry of the tip-sample interaction or to provide greater access to chemically modify the tip surface.
The second key element of a probe microscope is a scanning mechanism (“the scanner”), which produces relative motion between the probe and the sample. It is well-known by those in the field that such scanners may move either the tip relative to the sample, the sample relative to the tip, or some combination of both. Moreover, probe microscopes include both scanning probe microscopes in which the scanner typically produces motion in three substantially orthogonal directions, and instruments with scanners that produce motion in fewer than three substantially orthogonal directions (i.e.—MFP).
Turning to FIGS. 1A–1E and 2, force spectroscopy using SPM is illustrated. More particularly, FIGS. 1A–1E show how the forces between a tip 14 of a probe 10 and a sample 16, at a selected point (X,Y) on the sample, deflect a cantilever 12 of probe 10 as the tip-sample separation is modulated in a direction generally orthogonal to the sample surface. FIG. 2 shows the magnitude of the forces as a function of sample position, i.e., a force curve or profile.
In FIG. 1A, probe 10 and sample 16 are not touching as the separation between the two is narrowed by moving the sample generally orthogonally toward the sample surface. Zero force is measured at this point of the tip-sample approach, reflected by the flat portion “A” of the curve in FIG. 2. Next, probe 10 may experience a long range attractive (or repulsive force) and it will deflect downwardly (or upwardly) before making contact with the surface. This effect is shown in FIG. 1B. More particularly, as the tip-sample separation is narrowed, tip 14 may “jump” into contact with the sample 16 if it encounters sufficient attractive force from the sample. In that case, the corresponding bending of cantilever 12 appears on the force profile, as shown in FIG. 2 at the curve portion marked “B.”
Turning next to FIG. 1C, once tip 14 is in contact with sample 16, the cantilever will return to its zero (undeflected) position and move upwardly as the sample is translated further towards probe 10. If cantilever 12 of probe 10 is sufficiently stiff, the probe tip 14 may indent into the surface of the sample. Notably, in this case, the slope or shape of the “contact portion” of the force curve can provide information about the elasticity of the sample surface. Portion “C” of the curve of FIG. 2 illustrates this contact portion.
In FIG. 1D, after loading cantilever 12 of probe 10 to a desired force value, the displacement of the sample 16 is reversed. As probe 10 is withdrawn from sample 16, tip 14 may either directly adhere to the surface 16 or a linkage may be made between tip 14 and sample 16, such as via a molecule where opposite ends are attached to the tip 14 and surface 16. This adhesion or linkage results in cantilever 14 deflecting downwards in response to the force. The force curve in FIG. 2 illustrates this downward bending of cantilever 14 at portion “D.” Finally, at the portion marked “E” in FIG. 2, the adhesion or linkage is broken and probe 10 releases from sample 16, as shown in FIG. 1E. Particularly useful information is contained in this portion of the force curve measurement, which contains a measure of the force required to break the bond or stretch the linked molecule.
An example of a sample force measurement as described above is shown in FIG. 3 where two complimentary strands of DNA 20 are immobilized on the tip and sample surfaces 22 and 24, respectively. By modulating the tip-sample separation, a force curve such as that shown in FIG. 2 can be generated. As a result, a quantitative measurement of the forces and energetics required to stretch and un-bind the DNA duplexes can be mapped.
In sum, a simple force curve records the force on the tip of the probe as the tip approaches and retracts from a point on the sample surface. A more complex measurement known as a “force volume,” is defined by an array of force curves obtained as described above over an entire sample area. Each force curve is measured at a unique X-Y position on the sample surface, and the curves associated with the array of X-Y points are combined into a 3-dimensional array, or volume, of force data. The force value at a point in the volume is the deflection of the probe at that position (x, y, z).
Although SPMs are particularly useful in making such measurements, there are inherent problems with known systems. In particular, typical SPMs use conventional fine motion piezoelectric scanners that translate the tip or sample while generating topographic images and making force measurements. A piezoelectric scanner is a device that moves by a microscopic amount when a voltage is applied across electrodes placed on the piezoelectric material of the scanner. Overall, the motion generated by such piezoelectric scanners is not entirely predictable, and hence such scanners have significant limitations.
A conventional AFM 30 including a piezoelectric scanner 32 is shown in FIG. 4. Scanner 32 is a piezoelectric tube scanner including an X-Y section 34 and a Z section 36. In this arrangement, Z section 36 of scanner 32 is adapted to support a sample 42.
To make a force measurement, section 34 of scanner 32 translates sample 42 relative to probe 44 of AFM 30 to a selected position (X,Y). As noted previously, to actuate scanner 32, sections 34, 36 include electrodes placed thereon (such as 38 and 40 for the X-Y section) that receive appropriate voltage differentials from a controller that, when applied, produce the desired motion. Next, Z section 36 is actuated to translate sample 42 toward a tip 46 of probe 44, as described in connection with the force curve measurement shown in FIGS. 1A–1E and 2. Again, as tip 46 interacts with sample 42, a cantilever 48 of probe 44 deflects. This deflection is measured with a deflection detection system 50. Detection system 50 includes a laser 51 that directs a light beam “L” towards the back of cantilever 48, which is reflective. The beam “L” reflects from cantilever 48, and the reflected beam “L” contacts a beam steering mirror 52 which directs the beam “L” towards a sensor 54. Sensor 54, in turn, generates a signal indicative of the cantilever deflection. Because cantilever deflection is related to force, the deflection signals can be converted and plotted as a force curve.
Standard piezoelectric scanners for SPMs usually can translate in three substantially orthogonal directions, and their size can be modified to allow scan ranges of typically several nanometers to several hundred microns in the X-Y plane and typically <10 microns in the Z-axis. Moreover, depending on the particular implementation of the AFM, the scanner is used to either translate the sample under the cantilever or the cantilever over the sample.
The methods and limitations described above pertaining to current typical scanners in SPM are in many cases acceptable in applications where a probe microscope is being used in conventional imaging modes in which the XY motion is typically periodic and it is acceptable to use a relative measure of Z movement.
However force spectroscopy experiments typically demand more precise control of relative tip-sample motion, particularly in the Z-axis (the axis substantially perpendicular to the sample surface).
Typical piezoelectric scanners do not exhibit linear motion, i.e., a given change in the applied drive voltage to the piezo will result in a different magnitude of motion in different areas if the operating range. Typical piezoelectric scanners also commonly exhibit hysteretic motion, i.e., if a particular voltage ramp is applied to the scanner and then the ramp is re-traced exactly in reverse, one finds that the scanner follows a different position path on the extend versus the retract. Piezoelectric scanners also “creep,” which means that they continue to extend or retract for a period of time after the applied drive voltage has stopped changing. Piezoelectric tube scanners also typically have low resonant frequencies in the Z-axis. Those skilled in the art recognize that this represents a serious limitation on the range of operating speeds for which the scanner is useful. This is because the piezoelectric material undergoes complex oscillatory motion when passing through and near the resonant frequency.
Any one or more of these limitations clearly jeopardize the integrity of the tip-sample motion, and therefore the corresponding data collected is of marginal usefulness. Overcoming these limitations is one of the key goals of this invention.
Alternative means of relative tip-sample motion exist that address these concerns, although they can create new problems. For instance, sensors can be coupled to piezoelectric scanners by various means well-known in the field. Such sensors can produce a more accurate record of motion compared to the more usual assumption that the control voltage is representative of the motion. However, adding sensors to a scanner only detects, not corrects, these undesirable motions. However, such sensored scanners can be used in a closed-loop feedback configuration in which the motion is monitored during a change in position and the applied drive voltage is modified as necessary to make the actual path of motion more closely match the path specified by the control input signal. Such sensored and closed-loop scanners are most commonly implemented in conjunction with a different mechanical design of the scanner known as a piezo-actuated flexure stage (“stage”). These stages contain mechanical constraints (flexures) on the motion of the stage intended primarily to constrain the motion of the stage to one axis and to mechanically stiffen the stage. This design also presents more obvious possibilities for incorporating a sensor than piezoelectric tube designs, although either is feasible in practice. The flexure stage offers the additional advantage of increasing the resonant frequency of the stage relative to a piezoelectric tube scanner with similar range.
Nevertheless, although the above may seem to suggest a design including closed-loop flexure stages in all three axes, in practice such a design has significant drawbacks. Among the disadvantages of a three-flexure stage design, is that 3-axis flexure stages are much larger than a typical piezoelectric tube scanner of similar range due to the added mass and volume of the constraining mechanism and sensors. In practice, larger designs more readily couple outside vibrational and acoustic noise sources into the motion of the scanner, which significantly degrades the scanners usefulness for force spectroscopy. Closed-loop flexure stages are also significantly more expensive than piezoelectric tube scanners of similar range.
Therefore, the use of flexure stages for all three axes is not desirable for the design of a compact, low-noise, relatively inexpensive instrument.
There are also drawbacks associated with the methods employed to make conventional force curve measurements. Experimentally, a force curve measurement is made by applying, for example, a cyclical triangle wave voltage pattern to the electrodes of the Z-axis scanner as shown in FIG. 5A. The triangle wave drive signal causes the scanner to expand and then contract in the vertical direction, generating relative motion between the probe and the sample. In such a system, the amplitude of the triangle wave as well as the frequency of the wave can be controlled so that the researcher can linearly vary the distance and speed that the AFM cantilever tip travels during the force measurement. In FIG. 5B, a drive signal similar to that shown in FIG. 5A is illustrated. However, in this case, the drive signal includes a pause between each change in the direction of Z scanner motion. In each case, the drive signal is cyclical. However, oftentimes it is desired to modify the parameters of the force measurement in a non-cyclical manner, including the speed at which the tip-sample separation is modulated, the duration of a pause (to allow molecular binding between tip and molecules on the surface, for example), etc. to analyze forces corresponding to, for example, complex mechanical models of certain samples. In this regard it is notable that conventional systems often lack flexibility in making measurements that are non-cyclic. Therefore, a system was desired in which the flexibility in performing the force measurement is improved. For example, a specific change or rate of change in tip-sample force or a specific value of a tip-sample force may indicate some property pertaining to the sample in question. In response, it would be desirable to alter a force curve measurement parameter (such as the speed of the movement) in response to a specific measurement condition. Or, for example it may be desirable to instead of following a path of position (separation) versus time, follow a path of force versus time where the position (separation) is controlled to produce the desired force profile.
Although this example relates specifically to AFM force measurements that use cantilever deflection as a measure of force, those skilled in the art will recognize that there are other physico-chemical properties that can be measured using substantially similar probes, instrumentation, and algorithms.
There exists a variety of instrumentation and techniques for making force spectroscopy measurements. However, the most common mode of operation is like that described above where the probe-sample separation is reduced until the probe is in contact with the sample (extend). Often the movement is paused at this point to allow the probe to bind to the sample (i.e.,—a molecule on the surface). After a brief time (typically 1–10 seconds), the probe-sample distance is increased (retract), which pulls on the linkage formed, and, in the case of a molecule binding, stretches the molecule. Usually these measurements are automated such that the probe microscope instrument cyclically repeats the extend/retract and automatically captures the data.
This automated technique is well suited for the collection of large amounts of data, which is often desirable since the data is frequently presented as a histogram of the probe-sample interaction. However, the technique is not well-suited to exploratory type measurements since it is not always obvious at the beginning of an experiment what the appropriate measurement parameters should be set to. For instance, the distance that the probe-sample separation is changed, the speed at which it changes, the amount of time the probe pauses on the surface, and other parameters are all variables which are set individually for each new type of experiment. It becomes even more difficult to estimate distance, speeds, and pause times in more complex experiments where, for instance, the user may wish to partially stretch a molecule, then pause to let it relax, and then decrease the probe-sample distance to allow the molecule to re-fold. In these cases, the appropriate way in which the experiment should be done might be most easily discerned in real-time by the operator during the experiment itself.
In fact, devices in probe microscope instruments have been to allow manual control of probe-sample distance. One, for instance, includes a means on the controller that, among other things, can be used to control the probe-sample separation. However, merely having manual control of the probe-sample separation is not enough to make the device useful. Without some reliable, real-time feedback of the probe-sample interaction the user is essentially “flying blind” while attempting to manipulate the molecule or other sample. The situation is akin to trying to manipulate a macroscopic object using your hands, but where you can neither see the object or your hands nor can you feel anything with your hands or arms. One of the key elements to making manual control of probe-sample separation useful is to provide real-time tactile (haptic) feedback of the probe-sample interaction directly to the manual control device.
Attempts have been made to merge haptic technology with probe microscopy technology. One three-dimensional tactile feedback device moves a probe in three dimensions and provides tactile feedback to the control. Essentially it is a stylus type device mounted to a base via several pivot points. However, this device is not optimized for single molecule force measurements because, as appreciated by those skilled in the art, the ability to change probe-sample separation in only one-axis is difficult with a three-axis device. Furthermore, making fine adjustments to the position of the end of the stylus in free air is difficult at best, even with steady hands.
Moreover, the useable range and sensitivity of such a device is inherently limited by the dimensions of the device. More particularly, there is a fixed physical distance between the maximum and minimum distance that the stylus can move. This distance must either correspond to the full range of the probe microscope axis, for example 20 microns, which would give poor fine control and sensitivity, or the range must be limited to a smaller size, for example 1 micron, which would give better sensitivity and control, but only over a small distance. This drawback with respect to sensitivity and control is the same one that limits the usefulness of another probe microscope haptic device. In that device, a lever pivots at one end over an arc of 180 degrees. Lever motion controls probe-sample separation, while a mechanism is included to provide resistance to movement during operation. But again, this device is of limited utility since the range of motion has a definite limit.
It was therefore determined that the field of force spectroscopy using probe microscopy was in need of an invention that overcame the limitations associated with known systems. Namely, a manual device was needed for changing probe-sample distance so as to provide both good spatial resolution (including the ability to move smoothly over a very small distance), and real feedback, haptic, or otherwise, based on the probe-sample interaction.